Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter Flaws


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete, since this article has no hope of surviving. Poorly defined (what is a "flaw"), inaccurate ("great variety" is really "one thing I noticed"), original research, fan-based trivia....-Wafulz 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Flaws

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another Harry Potter page that contains information that is found somewhere else or that could be moved someplace else. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  13:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, almost an A1 (no context) speedy. Original research, with a dash of uft-cray. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps not an A1, but we certainly don't need an article on this, particularly when there is only one entry. If someone really wants to include this, they can merge it into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but I don't really even see that as necessary until there are a substantial number of such flaws and they have been pointed out by an independent source. Hersfold (talk/work) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. --Eyrian 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR - but you have got to love the opening line in the article: there is a variety of flaws and then goes on to list this variety being....err... just one. Pedro | Chat  14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR Corpx 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, more worthless fan-generated material. Burntsauce 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, what the hell? Where did this come from?  And since when is a 'great variety' one thing?Ravenmasterq 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete worthless cruft - and just a single piece of worthless cruft in there too. Bigdaddy1981 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Avada Kedavra Delete  The article names only one supposed flaw, that the cloak was supposed to make the wearer invisible to Death, and Moody could see Potter in it. But Moody was not Death, so the flaw is flawed. Kill the article before the purchasers of 25 million copies of a several hundred page book add more spurious original research "flaws." Edison 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a WP:SNOW is justified at this point. --Eyrian 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.